will fix these problems. he is doing well. people on the far right are happy with that. host: william joins us from texas. caller: i am so happy to get through. this is my first time. if mitt romney were president and he went to war, would you have your kids go to war with him? guest: i think mitt romney will have to make that case and prove he is able to make large decisions on that level of

politics. he is growing questions about what the administration knew and the decisions they made about security in benghazi and afterwards to insist it was not a terrorist action. i think all of that will give mitt romney a strong opening. it remains to be seen. based on his performance in the first debate talking about the economy, i suspect he will do well. host: are you still with us? caller: in 1968, he went to

paris, france. i do not consider him a leader. guest: it was for a peace corps type thing the mormon church does. you could probably dig up things i have written making fun of anyone who goes to live in paris. he has done a good job of defending that and making the argument he was doing a terrible thing and fulfilling a public service requirement of the mormon church. that speaks to another thing. during the primary, i was highly skeptical he would be able to get beyond his mormonism with the christian voters.

it is remarkable how he has managed to make it not be an issue. a lot of it has to do with the business of explaining not the differences between warm innocent and the other christian faith, but all of the stories that have come out about his charity work and the generosity, and things like that, which would include the mission work in paris. i think it allays the fears some people have about him being part of a cultish religion when it is just part of being in a christian religion. host: the legal attack on the diplomatic mission in libya has created an unexpected casualty.

the white house hopes president obama will remain unscathed on foreign policy issues in the presidential race. guest: it is especially difficult. one thing president obama ram on fort years ago is he had a unique ability to reach out to the muslim world and make things better. i believe that. based on speeches he has given and some of the stagecraft suggesting president obama has moved the u.s. away from israel, it has opened a new rift.

the situation in libya, because we're dealing with islamic extremists who committed a terrorist attack and assassinated our ambassador, it speaks to the larger issue of whether president obama will make things better in the middle east. i would argue he has not. i would argue he made things worse. anyone would agree things are not better their than before he took office. host: let's go to debbie. caller: i am from michigan. i appreciate your comment about a earthlings. i am one of those earthlings.

i do not understand why none of the media has picked up on what romney said in the debate when president obama was talking about tax breaks for moving overseas. mitt romney said he needed to get a new accountant. like the man needs another tax break. that is all i got today. thank you for taking my call. guest: that was one of my favorite parts of the first debate. romney is not good at the jocular line. he was in michigan when he observed the trees are the right height. it was bizarre. i think he was kidding and tried to make small talk. that nerdiness has turned out to cut in his favor a bit.

the line about needing a new account month was an occasion when it worked. host: i was going to ask charles if he has thought about what obama has come over the last four years. the attorney general was questioned. he was questioned with lies. you have not said anything about his lies and the attorney general. what is going on with the thought? guest: the botched gun run into mexico is a fascinating issue. literally people have died and

been killed with these guns moved across the border in hopes of tracking down these gunrunners. host: operation fast and furious. guest: the investigation -- it has been a disaster. it is up to the department of justice to make sure the investigations did not get to the bottom of it. i have always been skeptical about how much -- i think it enrages the already enraged. i do not think it is an issue that will unify people further on the left to be against

president obama, certainly not to the degree the economy does. if you do not have a job or your neighbor does not, that is a unifying issue, unlike cost and furious. host: let's listen to more comments. this is a conversation last week. they talk to robin nation's debt and deficit. let's hear what mitt romney had to say. [video clip] >> the approach is similar to bowles-simpson. bowles-simpson said to lower the rate to make it possible for small businesses to grow, but we will also limit exemptions. they put up different alternatives. i am open to the ideas they put

out in bowles-simpson, that kind of approach. host: mitt romney open to bowles-simpson. guest: anytime you have a blue ribbon commission, especially if it is dealing with massive rearrangement of how the government spends money, it will be a tricky sort of thing for a politician before an election. host: is it a dangerous issue when trying to garner tea party support? guest: i think it is savvy on his part. the bowles-simpson commission was a blue panel. president obama called together. they came up with a lot of hard decisions nobody liked. then he dismissed it and went on his way.

i think it could be tricky. i think it is savvy in one respect. mitt romney is running on the idea he will make tough decisions, that he is not going to skip out on major decisions that turn the giant battleship in a different direction so we're not heading towards insolvency. i think it is smart because the resort is needed. i think people are convinced major drastic decisions are going to have to be made. they need to know they are voting for a guy who can make them as opposed to a guy people feel confident is not making them.

host: they write in and say the ones who lost are the american people. we get played by the two-party system the bankers own. it is a tea party hashtag. guest: this time of year watching baseball, no matter who's commercial comes up, they drive you crazy. it would be smart if somebody would come up with silent campaign ads, something not nearly as annoying that made you want to pull your hair out. it could be something you are in love with, but the onslaught of them, and the the junk mail that comes in every day through the post office. i heard that the post office averted bankruptcy by couple months because of the influx of

junk mail. that says something in terms of everything in terms of the federal government. it drives people insane. i think everyone will be glad when it is over. host: vita, independent caller, california. caller: what drives me crazy is we have people on tv like that gentleman just justifying everything mitt romney says or everything that happens in the media against president obama without having the true facts. when you listen to c-span or watch the index, it was so disrespectful and discussed in to watch grown men who are supposed to be addressing the country who do not know how each government function

operates. we have embassies across the world and that you can hold one person accountable in the government for everything that happens. that is not democracy. for you to justify mitt romney's flip flops and how he will be a president and what he will stand for, to justify everything about calling him on it is wrong. you are a journalist. you are in the media. you are putting out information to the people. you should be held accountable for your actions, for what you say and do.

host: tell us about your column and respond to the comments. guest: the name of my column is "the nuclear option" for a strange reason. it is supposed to be cut and dried, and more outraged perspective on things. sometimes amazed slipover into being disrespectful. i do not mean to. i think if you go back and look at the columns i have written the past couple of years about mitt romney, i do not think you would find i have spent a lot of time sticking up for him. although i do think he has been running a fairly big campaign the last couple months. the fact he managed to get through the primary still amazes me.

but he did finally get through it and i think is running a good campaign. it is my opinion, which is particularly scary to think about. a lot of people, my wife to begin with, and say i do not deserve an opinion. but anyway, it is all my opinion. host: vita was talking about the facts and her concerns about mitt romney. guest: you are dealing with the candidate who was governor of massachusetts, a fairly liberal state. when he left office, he had done what a lot of people wanted him to do. turning from massachusetts to running for president as a republican, he will have to

change a lot of positions, so he did. it is worth noting it is not like he is constantly changing his positions every two weeks. he really has kind of changed them all and seems to be sticking with them. the inartful comments he made in des moines did not signal to make a change in position. he was saying what a huge number of conservatives have been whispering about. you are not supposed to say it, about the need to deal with the fiscal crisis before you do anything else. that was stupid of him to say that, but i do not think it reveals a particular change in position. it is the one most prevalent

that i hear among conservatives, even social conservatives that realized most important thing, the most important social progress for people is to have a good economy. without that, and specifically for america to have a great economy, without that, the world loses a very important place that believes in individual rights and freedom. host: maverick writes that romney's positions have been evolving. guest: i would say he is a flipper more than a flip flopper. he should stick with that. host: henry is a democratic caller from michigan.

caller: i am calling from port huron. this is disgusting. charles is a political hack and always will be. mitt romney lied in the debate. the only truthful thing he said in the entire debate was he had five sons who live. the truth does not fall far from the tree. mitt romney should not be doing as well as he is. the only reason is because we have a bunch of right-wing white supremacist confederates, not conservatives, confederates who only want to see the black man out of office. this man has done his very level best to make this country -- host: let's let charlie hurt respond. guest: that is an astonishing

and sad thing to hear. i covered president obama four years ago and was one of those reporters -- i believed a lot of what he said. i thought he was a very promising new kind of figure who changed the tone of washington. he did not change the tone of washington. he did not make good on any of the promises he made coming into the white house. also remember for the first two years of his presidency, he had a huge majority in the house of democrats. he had a huge majority in the senate. at one point, it was even filibuster-proof. did he cut spending? no.

he did not do any of these things. for the following two years, he still had a majority in the senate. things have gotten tougher for him in the house, but it is not like -- he ran everything. he ran the whole town. he could have gotten things done. the knock against him mitt romney made about how he put all his eggs into obamacare instead of fixing other things is a smart avenue. for people to turn this into race, i would argue those who think this is about race and people not liking somebody because of the color of their skin, i think those people should look in the mirror and ask themselves who is being racist, who is the one trying to bully an election based on the color of someone's skin.

host: one of your recent columns suggest mitt romney should only run for one term. you are encouraged him to make that announcement. you think that would be a game changes. do you still want him to do that? why would it be significant? >> the reason he walked away from simpson-bowles, he was going to hurt people. you know, i think it would be -- not romney's best chance, i think, not for winning, but for fixing things, is to come in as

a turnaround artist. there is evidence that suggests he has been good at that. he has made a lot of money doing that. i think that if became in, spend four years, make those decisions, whether it is adopting simpson-bowles or whatever, to turn the curve from heading towards insolvency around so that we were heading away from insolvency, and our social programs were heading away from insolvency, which is a few years away, i think that he could get it done. 1 and down. he would walk away with a sterling record. >> let's hear from one last caller. john joins us from buffalo, new york. >> hello. charlie, i never drank the kool- aid. what we have here -- we are

going to talk about the presidential election and everything like that. in my opinion, obama has never in his life has never been challenged by anyone. you can talk about hillary and everybody. when they accused bill clinton of being racist, they pulled back like nobody's business. that last caller? patriotism is calling somebody racist? my point is this, obama has never been challenged. i personally believe that we are going to see a meltdown of this man. we saw it after the first debate. wait until he tries to defend what happened in been gauzy. that is absolutely disgusting mess what happened there. if you say, you're fascinated by dead americans in mexico and bing crosby. --benghazi.

this man is not normal. this man is terrifying. osama binstan -- laden has been killed for a year or two. i thought that is what we were doing. >> let's get a response from charlie. but it's a historical perspective on afghanistan. >> the caller said he never drink kool-aid -- he never voted for obama. it is not surprising he will not vote for him -- that is not where the election will turn. election will turn, the people who voted for obama last time, or the other way around, but i suspect it will go that way. in terms of his debate performance the other day, the fact is to watch him try to defend four years, president obama was very good talking

about what he was going to do before he came in. he did a very poor job in telling what he has done and defending that. unmagical -- was no hint of the 2008 president obama when he was on the debate stage of the other night. there was no old, sonny, speech writer of four years ago. in terms of afghanistan -- >> he was angry about that? >> that is fascinating because i would imagine that a lot of the people who supported president bush in 2004 against john kerry are probably -- probably do not have a huge beef with the way president obama has executed the war, terror in afghanistan.

in terms of, the drone strikes and going after osama bin laden -- the desire to get out of all these places. i do think -- i do not think that will be a big turning point in the election. >> some of your recent columns, "obama the debater looking jimmy carter look awesome." you can find that on the washington times web site. thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. >> tomorrow, on the "washington journal," we will discuss conservatives and the campaign. that is followed by energy and the campaign. mitt romney's policy and his

attacks on the obama campaign. later, we will look at the $9 billion provided to states since 2002 by the center for disease control to prepare public health emergencies. "washington journal" with your calls and e-mails live at 7 eastern on c-span. >> monday, retired supreme court justice john paul stevens will talk about the second amendment and gun laws. our live coverage begins at 12:15 eastern time on c-span2. monday, we will look at the future of world broadband telecommunications. the hudson institute will debate whether the subsidies should be provided to companies in exchange for extending broadbent

and other services to rural areas. our live broadcast begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on the c- span. >> c-span brings a special perspective into what is happening in washington, particularly your coverage of the house and senate. if something is going on in the house or senate, and something will go on in the next five years, c-span covers this very well, and it is one of the major news sources or news happenings in washington. we are all struggling with health care. c-span was the authoritative voice covering health care. when we were worried about the financial system, c-span was the authoritative voice on what congress will do or will not do in terms of the financial system. >> c-span, created by america's

cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] murphy faced off in their second debate for the senate seat to replace joe lieberman. this race is a tossup. the debate is courtesy of fox ct. >> good evening. tonight representing the connecticut u.s. senate debate between the republican candidates linda mcmahon and chris murphy. welcome. we look forward to hearing more about your ideas and maybe learning some new things. this is going to cover a wide range of topics from the economy to foreign economy. joining me are three panelists. first, my co-hosts.

>> there will be no opening statements. that will weaken the right to the questions and answers. there will be a 62nd closing statement. the candidates will each have 20 seconds to answer and then a reach for rebuttal. we do have timekeepers. they will signal when it is up. they will determine which candidate will start the debate. mr. murphy will go first in answering the first question. mr. murphy will go first we get to the closing statements. there were chosen by the hartford courant.

the audience here has promised to remain quiet and attentive up with no cheering or jeering and no applause or outburst set any kind during this debate. that takes more time away from learning something about these candidates. let's begin. our first topic is the nation's economy. laurie perez will be asking the first. >> you talked a lot about protecting american manufacturing jobs. your opponent has criticized you for not having a comprehensive job plan. tell us about it. >> thank you to all of our sponsors for being here. thank you to ucon. this is special. we met each other at the law school.

that is as dramatic as it gets for kathy and i. let's talk about this. protecting manufacturing is critical to protecting this stage. i do have a jobs plan. linda mcmahon to stop saying i don't. manufacturing is the heart of it. the bi-american caucus stands for this. our taxpayer dollarshould be used to fund jobs here in suspending work overseas. i think we could create 600,000 new manufacturing jobs. it would close this. here in connecticut, it relies heavily on manufacturing. >> you have talked quite a bit about your track record of creating jobs as a business owner. as a u.s. venture, how would

you create jobs? >> i do have a six point plan. he does not have a plan. it cuts taxes on businesses so they're competitive. it rolls back regulations. it cut spending 1%. it empowers our work force. it calls for a comprehensive leadership policy that will continue to drill for natural gas while we develop our renewable. i do have a, 3 pence live -- have a comprehensive 6 point plan. aleksei of 30 seconds for

rebuttal. >> this is made up. i have a jobs record. this idea to try to trivialize it, talk to the workers who are going to be put out of work because our government is shifting jobs overseas. it is their livelihood. we should take seriously the premise that we send these to washington they should be used to create jobs here. >> 30 seconds. >> i am not sure how this is an integral part of your jobs plan. our deficit has increased. unemployment is on the rise. this is not part of an active

jobs plan. and next topic bills was something we all worry about, it taxes. chris keating will ask that question first. >> there is consensus that extending the bush tax cut is a good idea. there is sharp disagreement about whether the what they should benefit as well. how will you keep taxes lower on the wealthiest americans and keep the jobs as a whole? >> i do call for tax cuts for the middle class. i would keep all of the other tax brackets in place. there would be no gain or loss for others. even president obama in 2010 said we should not increase taxes will we are in a recession. we are barely out of a recession.

i do not think now is the time to raise taxes. my plan does call for a tax cut for the middle class. the only one on the stage as called for a tax cut from the middle class. we need to make sure that if our economy starts to turn around and we are improving, i would recommend that we pay more taxes. i would be willing to pay more taxes as long as there's were paid to pay down the debts. >> could raising taxes on the wealthy prove to be a disincentive for investment and growth? >> the centerpiece of mcmahon's plan is an extension of the bush tax cut on the wealthy. we know that tax cuts for the rich do not work. we tried it during the bush administration. if they worked, we would not be in the situation where we are

today. if we had $7 million to allocate some out and our economy, it makes sense to give it to linda mcmahon in a new tax cut above and beyond current law or put it in the hands of middle-class families so it makes sense to give her another $7 million tax cut. does it make sense to get for another $7 million tax cut or try to put construction workers back on the job? there is a difference. we have to get serious about deficit reduction. i do not think we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. her plan is a recipe to explode the deficit, and doing great harm to our economy. >> studies have shown that if your proposal of allowing all of the bush tax cut to go forward except those in the upper income, we will lose

700,000 jobs. that is not a plan to create jobs. my plan calls for keeping all of the tax levels the same except cutting taxes for the middle-class. i get no tax cut. what you are talking about is increase the taxes across the board. >> 30 seconds. >> here is what an economics professor says about her plan, he says it would balloon the deficit at a phenomenal rate. at some point arithmetic passed a matter. linda mcmahon calls for point with -- 4 $1 trillion in tax cuts. current spending cuts are 360 billion. that is 12 times as many tax cut the spending cuts. that is why we are in the mess today. we're not serious about deficit reduction. this country's going to flip right back into a recession.

>> thank you. that is a nice segue into cutting the national deficit. >> many believe the only way to reduce our deficit is to cut back on spending. please name three specific programs you could see eliminated. the senior political science major here wants to know how you can protect connecticut defense businesses? >> i have been proud to have stood up for spending cuts. i do not think we need $6 billion in agricultural subsidies to midwestern farmers. i do not think we need a $3 million to put the engine. -- duplicative engine. i have been clear that on our

medicare budget we need to gruen efficiency by stopping to pay insurance and drug companies. deficit-reduction has to be balanced. there's no way to do this without spending cuts and some additional revenue. linda mcmahon signed this pledge to grover norquist saying that she would never vote for any revenue increases into the federal government. we do not need to send someone to washington who will be part of the obstruction. we need to bring people together and recognize you have to be serious about spending cuts. the approach has to be balanced. >> we cannot close the dead by not reducing spending. what he describes is a very dim view of the american economy. my plan will cut taxes for the

middle class and put them back to work. they will have money in their pockets. they will pay more + taxes. it is growth in the economy. my plan is a pro-growth plan. we make our businesses competitive. we allow our job traders to continue to create jobs. our economy will grow. we have deficit reduction. we put people back to work. when people have money in their pocket, they buy more goods and services. when they buy more goods and services people make more. that is the way our economy grows. we need to reduce taxes and spending. >> your rebuttal? this is a tried and true talking point. if you cut taxes for the wealthy, that money is going to trickle down to everybody else of the economy grows. we have data on this.

we know what happens when we passed a massive-on finance tax cuts for the you i -- massive un-financed tax cuts for the wealthy. >> your thoughts? >> let's talk about the failed policies. our debt has almost doubled. we have 9% unemployment in our state. i do not think his policies have worked. we cannot keep sending the same people back to washington. >> thank you. you have been talking quite extensively about this next topic. laurie perez is quick to ask

that appeared >> there has been a lot of debate around the question of how to protect social security while keeping the program costs in check. what is your solution? >> we absolutely are going to have to reform social security and medicare. there's one person who has agreed to take $716 billion out of medicare. i would never support a budget that would reduce benefits for social security or medicare to our seniors. i will certainly fight tooth and nail in never support a budget that would reduce those benefits. we know we have to have reform. it is not sustainable. we have to get in a bipartisan fashion on how we're going to reform both.

i am not going to support policy but reduced benefits to our seniors. >> she's not getting any answers. what are you going to do that she would not tell you. she just said to get everybody in a room and they would talk about it. you have to be honest with people about what your plans are. she told a tea party group that she supported ending social security of social changes are not made. she has been on the record over and over saying she would support privatizing medicare for individuals which could result in $6,000 a more in costs. i think you have to be serious. i had been on record as being willing to support cut spending

rate of growth of medicare so it take money out in the hands of insurance and drug companies. i am willing to be specific. linda mcmahon will not tell the voters where she stands. >> any specifics? >> you have to be honest. about not being honest this whole thing about my saying that i would and social security. this morning i said that was a false ad. i have said all along that i would never cut or support a budget that would cut budgets to our seniors. i will not. medicare was passed not in a bipartisan way. i do think we have to have bipartisan action on these issues. >> still is given another 30

seconds to give you specifics and she still did not give you specifics. she does not want you to know what she is going to do. here is exactly what you said. he said "i believe in sunset provisions. we pass legislation like this so we can take a look at a 10 or 15 years down the road. i am not putting words in her mouth. i am just saying what she told a tea party group. the only time she is been on record giving specifics about her plan for social security and medicare. >> we're going to take a quick break and then be back with more questions. coming up next, like from the university of connecticut. -- live from the university of connecticut. >> we continue our u.s. senate debate with linda mcmahon and chris murphy.

there is one enormous hot- button issue that has divided lawmakers in washington and impacts everybody. that is the issue of universal health care. chris keating will ask the next question. >> the u.s. supreme court has upheld the key part of the universal health care plan including the much debated individual mandate. which specific elements should be left alone and which specific elements should be changed? >> it cost the family $3,000 every tiny have to take the medication. the insurance plan has a frigid every time he had to take the medication. -- it costs the family $3,000

every time they have to take medication. the interest plan affects this. there are thousands of families out there who are at risk of losing everything. there are individuals who lose their jobs simply because they get sick. i have been proud to stand up for the concept that health care should be a human rights, and not something you get if you are rich enough to afford it. i am proud to have played a role. >> i will like to replace the affordable health care act. the cost of health care is going up. it is a good thing that children can see on their parents' policy until there are

26 years old. i do not think he should be penalized for pre-existing conditions. i do think we can bring down the cost of health care and have reform by having to buy bringing this across state mines? it brings down the cost of insurance that way. i think health care ought to be affordable. it ought to be acceptable. it ought to be portable. in this new bill there are 21 new tax increases. i do not think we should be increasing taxes. >> talk to students here he will be able to stay on their parents' health care plan when they graduate. see it that has helped them. talk to seniors to go into the drugstore now and perhaps as much as they used to for drugs.

they have voted to repeal the bill thirtysomething times. they never voted to replace it. linda mcmahon will be a vote to repeal of the bill, and not replace it. >> your the only one that has voted to take $617 billion out of medicare. it will affect our seniors. that money will grow for hospitals and doctors. if they're not reimbursed, about 15% will go out of business. our seniors will not have access. that is not how we should be treating our seniors. that is how we need to reform this health care policy. >> women's issues played a role from both of you.

>> you have both portrayed herself as an advocate of women's rights. how would you balance the desires of institutions that are philosophically opposed to birth control with the government's requirement under the new law that they provide contraception coverage? >> i am a pro-choice candidate. i believe women should have access to contraception. i am all about women's issues. i am a woman. i would not be opposed to them. i think the greatest thing that has happened relative to women because of the failed policies of congressman murphy. more women are out of work. women have the same issues today that everyone has. the fate of their jobs. they're worried about making their house payments.

they hope their kids are going to be able to get a job. these are the issues that are really facing our women today. when i am traveling around the state they're not talking about contraception. they're talking about how they're going to make ends meet. >> it may not be an issue to her but it is to millions of that do not have access to basic preventive health care, when their employer denies them access to birth control and contraception. that is an economic issue to women in this state tour not making as much as linda mcmahon does. linda mcmahon support something called the blunt amendment. it would allow any employer across this country to deny their female employees access to birth control and contraception. the reason why the head of pro-

choice america was here today campaigning for me, in today's to make sure linda mcmahon did not get elected was because pro-choice advocates around this country know that linda mcmahon would empower a radical like that would deny a woman's right to choose and would vote to and contraception coverage for millions of women. >> i am for women's access to contraception. i am a pro-choice candidate. always have been. i have not changed that. >> thank you very much. >> i do not know whether she

just did not read, but it is not about religious employers. it would allow any religious or non-religious employer to end contraceptive coverage for their employers. linda murkowski said she [unintelligible] you cannot continue to run away from the things you said you would support. he said it would deny women access to contraception. >> thank you very much. the next topic is about the concept. >> several of our readers and viewers including sheila o'conor says they have been short on the issues. do you have any plans going forward? >> i think this campaign has to be about the issues. there are big differences

between linda mcmahon and i when it comes to the issues. one reporter asked her campaign why she was not talking more about the issues, why she was engaging in these character assaults against me and my family. her campaign manager said talking about the issues would be senseless exercise. it would be for linda mcmahon. on the issues, she is wrong. she is not where the state is when it comes to passing another tax cut for the rich. she's got where the state is when it comes to protecting women's health care. she is not where the state is when it comes to standing up to outsourcing. i do think this campaign should about the issues. i hope the next three weeks of this campaign are spent talking about the real issue differences between linda mcmahon and i a. the difference in our professional backgrounds and not the kind of personal attacks we have seen in her ads.

myi've been talking since campaign began about my jobs plan. the primary issue in the economy. he has no plan. 23 million people are either out of work are looking for work. if you want to focus on the issues, it is the issue of whether or not he will focus on the attendance record. he needs to be honest with the

people of connecticut about these issues. >> rebuttal? >> the asset she was stop the character assaults. she lifted almost fully paragraph and sentences from website and washington written by people who do not have connected interests at heart. >> we want to remind you about your pledge not to cheer or applaud so we can have more time for the questions and

answers. >> there have been plenty of negative ads coming from congressman murphy as well. he is not talked about the issues. this morning our host said they are accusing this relative to social security and medicare was false. let's make sure we have the facts straight year the need to be honest with the people of connecticut. come clean about your attendance record. >> you have run at sang in 2008 that they have given your opponent a special below market loan that ordinary people could not get in suggesting the deal was linked to mr. murphy's vote on the bailout bill.

your campaign has also said that only mr. murphy now is the detail of the loans. if you do not know the details, what are you saying he got a special loan? >> he represented the bank. he had foreclosure issues. the banks bailed him out. he sat on the finance committee. that bank received $400 million of special bailout money. neither you nor the bank has been willing to release the arguments. >> he responded with a campaign

describing her as false. he then cited a different statistic touting your voting record. why did you describe per ads as false? >> what she is trying to essentially say is about my work ethic. the people of the fed district know that i have worked my tail off for them. i have played well about my weight in winning fights for them. this attack is ludicrous.